(OH) Man sues firearm company after leg is amputated

Status
Not open for further replies.

Drizzt

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,647
Location
Moscow on the Colorado, TX
Man sues firearm company after leg is amputated
By KATHY THOMPSON
Staff Writer

ZANESVILLE - A Zanesville man is hoping his attorney will be able to convince a Muskingum County jury that the single-action revolver he was wearing was defective and caused him to lose his right leg.

Robert Taylor, 51, purchased the Freedom Arms Model 83 .454 Casull revolver from One Stop Sportsmen Shop in July 1997. That business no longer sells firearms and is not involved in the lawsuit that is being heard this week.

Taylor was wearing the revolver in a holster when he was visiting Wyoming in 2003, according to the complaint. The gun discharged as Taylor was pulling back the long duster he was wearing, the bullet ripping into his right leg in the back near the knee and exiting through his bone below the knee in the front of his leg.

Taylor had to have his leg amputated from the wound, according to court records.
"It snap fired," said Taylor's Wyoming attorney, Kent Spence, on Wednesday.

According to testimony by a firearms and design expert Tom Butters, of Texas, the transfer bar in the revolver did not work correctly.

Butters told jurors there was not a proper internal safety device in the revolver or it would not have been able to snap fire if the safety was on.

Butters testified for several hours Wednesday showing videos and explaining slides to jurors. Butters is expected to continue his testimony today. The trial is scheduled for the rest of this week and next week.

"We're here to get justice for Bobby," Spence said.

But, John Renzulli, an attorney from New York representing Freedom Arms Inc. and company president, Bob Baker, said the revolver is "a well made, reliable single action revolver that is not defective."

The gun is manufactured for hunting medium to large game, such as cape buffalo or lions, and serious silhouette competition.

"This gun is very reliable with a durable safety," Renzulli said. "This particular incident occurred because Mr. Taylor did not learn the function of the gun or read the manual."

Renzulli said he is confident the jury will find no reason to find a judgment for Taylor.

"Freedom Arms promotes gun safety and encourages all firearm users to learn the function of whatever gun they purchase and to read the owners manual before using the gun," Renzulli said.

Trial resumes today at the Muskingum County Courthouse in Common Pleas Judge Mark Fleegle's courtroom.



http://zanesvilletimesrecorder.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070517/NEWS01/705170304/1002
 
Something here just doesn’t smell right. Sounds like the guy buys the biggest gun he can find, dresses up like he thinks a cowboy would in the old west, and then does something stupid.

While anything is possible, I find it hard to believe the gun was the problem.
 
According to testimony by a firearms and design expert Tom Butters, of Texas, the transfer bar in the revolver did not work correctly.

Butters told jurors there was not a proper internal safety device in the revolver or it would not have been able to snap fire if the safety was on.
A defective product caused a serious injury, so I hope the guy gets a good settlement out of it.

Too bad it had to happen, though.
 
Butters told jurors there was not a proper internal safety device in the revolver or it would not have been able to snap fire if the safety was on.
A defective product caused a serious injury, so I hope the guy gets a good settlement out of it.

Errmmm, say again? You're trusting the opinion of someone who believes that a single action revolver has a safety that should have been on?
 
I don't care who you are, what kind of firearm you use, or if you don't even use a firearm, but just a pocket knife. At any time while in possession of an item that can cause personal injury, you MUST be conscious of that item and how you move and what you're involved in doing will affect that item, and how that will affect you.

I see this as another "I'm an idiot- so pay me" lawsuit. Good luck to Freedom Arms.
 
Snap fire ? Didn't he have it in a proper holster ? It sounds like he had it holstered with the hammer cocked .
 
Transfer Bar Safety

That model from Freedom Arms has a hammer-mounted transfer bar safety.

There's a definite procedure for setting that safety.

Unlike the Ruger transfer bar, it doesn't look like the trigger has to be engaged to fire via transfer bar; instead it looks like theirs is a blocking-style bar.

The manual is very clear about the safety setting, and advises a holster with a strap over the hammer.

I don't know for sure, having never tested their safety (though I've dry fired them), but I imagine it's possible to holster the pistol safetied, but without a strap, then catch the hammer on the backstroke, bringing it back nearly to full-cock, then having it drop in contact with the firing pin.

I'd have to examine one to know for sure.

If this is the case, then it's a design flaw, not a "defect" per se.

The manual says "safety and use a strap" and he evidently didn't.

I prefer the Ruger transfer bar, because it takes another level of stupid to have an accident with it: you HAVE to pull the trigger.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

We should probably grab someone from the revolvers sub-forum who actually has a Freedom Arms pistol and see what he has to say.
 
internal safety device

I don't believe he was referring to an external safety.

Hey, if the gun's design is defective and fired without the trigger being pulled, what's to discuss?

But enlighten me, what exactly is a 'snap fire'?
 
a snap fire is where the hammer is pulled back untill it almost catches, then is released, discharging without the triger being touched.
 
I thought it was common knowledge to not carry a single action revolver with the hammer cocked and a live round in the cylinder.
 
Even on old three-screw Rugers and SAAs, would the half cock notch not prevent such a 'snap firing'?
 
I thought it was common knowledge to not carry a single action revolver with the hammer cocked and a live round in the cylinder.

My reading is he did not necessarily have the hammer cocked while in the holster.

The gun discharged as Taylor was pulling back the long duster he was wearing, ...

Sounds like he was doing his best Clint Eastwood impersonation, and he snagged the hammer on the duster, pulled it back enough that when it dropped the gun fired.
Perhaps a poor design, but if that is what happened then it is operator error. Unless of course, there was a safety that was supposed to prevent that--I don't know.
Like everything in life you don't read the manual and understand how it operates, reality may come back to bite you.
 
I agree with obxned above, he was probably playing cowboy and seeing how fast he could draw.
 
OK. The FA '97 series has a transfer bar. The '83 action does NOT.

It has a hammer block, not a transfer bar - and according to FA the hammer block is somewhat marginal for fully loaded carry. FA is on record as saying it needs to be carried hammer-down on an empty chamber.

The '97 is as safe fully loaded as any other transfer bar gun including recent model Ruger SAs.

One problem with a hammer block is that if it fails, the gun reverts to being a zero-safety piece such as the 1873 Colt SAA.

If a transfer bar fails, the gun is a doorstop (absolutely can't fire, although it can be rigged back to zero-safety pretty easily, just epoxy and crudely shaped metal on the hammer as an emergency fix.)

Note that up until very recently, S&W used hammer blocks much like the FA83, but they had to do a revision during WW2 due to a drop accident. Pre-WW2 S&Ws aren't considered a good idea for CCW while Colt DAs with swing-out cylinders going back to WW1 and a bit before are as safe as anything made today.

At a guess: this was a maintenance/cleaning issue at least in part. That caused the hammer block to stick below where it could block the hammer. So the guy had a zero-safety gun without knowing it.

Or he did something even more colossally stupid...
 
I have to agree with skinnyguy. Too often people do stupid things and try to blame someone else for that stupidity.
This whole "It's not my fault" mentality has got to stop. I just wish people would grow up and take responsibility for their actions. Good, bad *or* ugly.
JMHO.
 
I owned a Freedom Arms Premier Grade .454, and I can't figure out why he carried his the way he did. Mine was to be carried with the hammer on the first notch (same as a 1911 can be if you choose). Without question, this is a foolish lawsuit.

We would have to ask El Tejon, but I believe the proper legal term is "...assumption of risk". When one participates in sports that carry risk, one has to accept assumption of risk. That does not preclude suits for defective or negligently manufactured products. But, if you carry the hammer cocked on a single-action-only revolver, well...
 
Obviously it couldn't be the individuals fault, and it wasn't the gun's fault, it was the duster that fired the shot. The man became a victim of his own evil duster. Likely one of those "assault dusters" with a "shoulder thing that goes up". I don't know about other states but in VA "assault dusters" are not available in sizes to fit nuns or children under the age of 5 years, nor are they allowed to have high capacity pockets.
 
My first thought was that he was trying to do a quick draw, with his finger on the trigger. How many times have we heard of people shooting themselves in the leg doing that?
 
If the gun was defective AND the defect caused it to AD, the guy deserves a boat load of money.

Otherwise, the guy deserves nothing.

It's a simple as that.
 
He fubared his own leg for sure. His new hobby can be pirate instead of cowboy.

I've always thought a transfer bar is a better design than a hammer block though. Best to understand how your equipment works before you start goofing off with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top